User talk:Duja/Archive 2

; Archives
Jun '04 – Mar 2006; Mar – May 2006; May – Oct 2006; Oct – Nov 2006;	Nov – Dec 2006; Jan – Mar 2007; Mar – Jul 2007; Jul – Aug 2007; Sep – Nov 2007;

Serboi

You do as you wish, you've been here longer and I think you know what's the most appropiate thing to do. But the Serboi Article has been renovated a bit... Check it.;D //Nexm0d's Talk Page "Cmok".

Duja,

...pogledaj Petar II Petrović Njegoš. Rade or Petar II... Zato sam htio Bajica or Mehmed... na clanku o Mehmed-pasi. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pravo da ti kažem, ne sviđa mi se to ni tamo kako je formulisano; u članku svakako treba spomenuti ime pod kojim je rođen, ali gdje i kako zavisi od toga koliko ga je koristio sam i koliko je pod njim poznat. Za Njegoša ne znam tačno, ali Mehmed-paša ga nije koristio sigurno, a tek ono nije opštepoznata stvar.

Dujo, Damir ima cudna uvjerenja (vrlo nelogicna), ali mislim da se moze s njim pricati. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moguće, ali s kojim ciljem? Pazi, sve što on radi ovdje je da umeće svoj POV u nekoliko odabranih članaka. Da on ima ijedan stvarni doprinos na Wikipediji koji nije revertovan (ajd' jeste popravio par anti-Bošnjačkih rečenica tu i tamo), pa da diskutujemo, ali ovako...

Zastava

Ne znam odakle ti da je ona skupstinska verzija tacna posto se upravo ova sa cistijim bojama a ne pastelnijim kao na skupstinskom sajtu vijori na institucijama ukljucujuci i samu skupstinu.

File:Flag of Serbia (state).svg.png

Pozdrav Avala 15:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Moja" svg verzija je nastala tako sto sam uzeo .cdr sa sajta parlamenta i konvertovao ga u .svg u Corelu, pazeći da boje ostanu iste i gledajući Pantone skalu. Na svim monitorima koje sam provjeravao izgleda OK, i slično bitmapama sa sajta parlamenta. Ova tvoja ima prilicno "drecavu" crvenu, koja ne odgovara onom što je po mom iskustvu istaknuto na institucijama. Po meni, jedina zvanična verzija može biti ona sa sajta parlamenta (mada je u ovoj državi, kao što znaš, sve moguće). Duja 15:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shvatam medjutim na mom monitoru ona sa parlamenta ima pastelnije nijanse a tacno je da ova vladina verzija malo vise dreci poput ruske zastave. A opet mozda su ispravne boje kao one na zastavi SCG. Ubedjen sam da ni oni samo ne znaju koji su tonovi zastave jer kao sto znas upotreba ove zastave i grba nije obavezna vec samo preporucena od strane parlamenta pa u duhu s tim zastava mozde da bude i sa petokrakom i drecava i ovakva i onakva tj. nedefinisana kao i sama drzava. Mozda bi trebalo pisati nekome heraldicaru koji bi nam pomogao jer cisto sumnjam da u vladi i skupstini uopste primecuju razliku. Pozdrav Avala 16:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaistinu su drugačije boje. Skloniji sam, međutim, da vjerujem onoj sa sajta parlamenta jer su tu date sve varijante detaljno po formatima, uključujući "referentni" Corel/CMYK. Primijeti da se na Vladinoj stranici [1] boje razlikuju na državnoj zastavi i predsjednickoj standarti. Osim toga, rekao bih da je ta varijanta sa zagasitijim bojama stvarno u upotrebi na Vladinim zgradama. Ako si u Srbiji (ja sam trenutno u US), pogledaj sam pa provjeri (pa mi javi :-) ). Duja 16:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Istina, ali ja sam ga uspio urazumiti da su Bosanci i Hrvati i Srbi. A on podrzava tezu da je Mehmed-pasa (Bajica) Sokolovic Srbin. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw...

...your link correction at Mac. Lang. and couldn't help myself laughing with the edit summary comment. Have you located who linked it there? :-) NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 19:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I didn't care too much... if you want to investigate, go ahead :-). Duja 19:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naaa, not worth it. I wouldn't know if I should ask for punishment, or compliment for humor. Interesting, though, that Brittanica states the big connection with Bulgarian, while POV editors remove it from the article all the time. Don't you think? NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 20:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Card game stub

The way you went about it caused all the articles the stub template was added to and thus landed in the card game stubs category to not be sorted. I consider one badly sorted category less of a problem than an entire category filled with missorted articles.

Drop by the stub sorting project, perhaps someone there knows if there's a way to sort subcategories within their categories themselves without affecting the articles they're added to. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops; thanks for the heads up on bridge stubs. I'll hold off on labeling more of them. BTW, there appear to be about 33 potential entries. I also see from your user page that you are interested in improving this area. Me too (no surprise), should I ever have the time, which is why I wanted to improve the category. Matchups 22:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with this? I saw that you added a bunch of new stubs to the bridge-stubs area, rather than card-game-stubs. I am happy to do that too (I've been using the card-game template so far), but I was waiting for a resolution at SfD. Matchups 16:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RM link

Thanks for fixing the link to Talk:Treaty of Oliwa at Requested Moves for me! Olessi 18:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improvement Belgrade

You may wish to vote for Belgrade at the Article Improvement Drive page, here. --estavisti 21:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Archiving

Will do.

Pogledaj moj predlog na Talk:Montenegrins. Izrazi svoje misljenje, molim te. Bo... ovaj cao... eh, ne znam sto da upotrebim. ;) --HolyRomanEmperor 18:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, ali mislim da clanak sadrzi previse srpske propagande (izuzetno). Znam ja da su Crnogorci zasigurno svi (jesu li?) nekada bili Srbi, ali ostavimo se anahronizma.

I didn't say the article was good, just...

And when it refers to the Christmas rebelion, I've been digging a little over there, and it the 3,000 killed/3,000 wounded figure is just a propaganda. I'm willing to change these incosistencies, but what I was merely refering to was Montenegrins (disambiguation) or something like they have on Macedonians. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...that I'm against splitting it. Macedonians (and everything regarding Macedonia) has its own special reasons to be a disambiguation page. What would you disambiguate "Montenegrins" to? Montenegrins (ethnic group) and Montenegrins (inhabitants). Unlike Macedonians, the two refer to one people, with same roots. Duja 17:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

We have an anonymous user accusing this user and Thomas.macmillan of being sockpuppets, and the page cited as evidence has never been edited by T.m. Furthermore, if you look at their interests, other than the geographic area that interests both, they are quite different--T.m is interested in baseball, where Duja is interested in bridge. And finally, if you look at their time-of-day edit patterns, they are completely different. I don't know the protocol for reverting this suggestion, but I hope it happens soon. Matchups 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry by me

I am quite new to wikipedia but, as I understand it, I am not a sockpuppet. I like to edit Kosovo/Macedonia pages but I never edited the Peja/Pec page. I am just a college student in NY. Perhaps whomever accused me of this can say why they did it?

Thanks

I have forget too cale you too, :)--Hipi Zhdripi 20:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK

I agree with you. I'll try to NPOV-ise the article later. I meant to say, I consider the Montenegrins, Serbs, Muslims, Croats and Bosniaks one people, but essentially, they're not. For instance, Islam appeared in Montenegro only in the 16th century. While Albanians, on the other hand, are surely not of the same origin like the other peoples.

Dujo, jesi li ti administrator? --HolyRomanEmperor 22:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nisam, a i ako zelis da me predlozis, ne hvala :-). Vec se bavim Wikipedijom daleko vise nego sto sam planirao. Vidis da sam uvalio Dijxtri :-) — mlad, pametan, oran, sa puno vise ideala nego ja. Jos malo pa cu da sam sebi napravim {{User:1ne/Userboxes/User cynic}} userbox :-) – sta, vec postoji?!. Mislim da mi treba wikivacation :-). Duja 01:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, steta. Svak' hoce da bude administrator, al' oni koji bas trebaju Wikipediji ne zele. :((( --HolyRomanEmperor 15:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jezici Hrvata, Srba, etc.

Vratio si moju izmenu kod Hrvata s komentarom da ponovo ne počinjemo... Ne znam na šta si konkretno mislio. Ipak, slična stvar stoji na članku o Srbima koju nisi revertovao. Zar to nešto ne govori? U svakom slučaju, vrlo je objektivno napisati da Hrvati pored hrvatskog govore i srpskim, hrvatskim, srpskohrvatskim. Ne mora se napisati also, može i bez toga. Ovo je enciklopedija, a ne politički pamflet, pa stoga običnom čitaocu, recimo s Novog Zelanda, valja staviti do znanja šta je to "Srednjojužnoslovenski dijasistem". Zamisli nekog ko krene sa učenjem hrvatskog nemajući pojma da je on kao i srpski ili bosanski i to shvati tek posle određenog vremena zbog ovakvih inačica na jednoj sve respektabilnijoj enciklopediji (ne i ako se nacionalizam što se tiče našeg prostora uveća). Pozdrav. --Pockey 08:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ako postoji na clanku o Srbima, promaklo mi je.

Što se tiče pitanja jezika, svi znamo kakva je situacija; pitanje je kako je ko politički interpretira. Međutim, koliko su ti jezici slični i/ili različiti je objašnjeno na više mjesta i infobox ethnic group niti može niti treba da se upliće u detalje; ali vjerujem da ćeš se složiti da gotovo nijedan Hrvat neće reći da mu je maternji jezik Srpski, niti će ijedan Srbin reći da mu je maternji Hrvatski (čast izuzecima). Stoga, vratio sam ti izmjenu jer će (ne sasvim bez razloga) biti shvaćena kao politička provokacija; ideja jezičkog i drugog zajedništva je manje-više propala i treba se pomiriti s tim. Razumijem tvoj politički stav, ali bojim se da si u manjini. Duja 14:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Znam da sam u manjini i to nije sporno. Međutim, ja ovo nisam stavio zbog politike, već zbog zdravog razuma i objektivne situacije. Ova enciklopedija mora prikazivati objektivnu situaciju. Trebao bi da znaš da se imena jezika pišu malim slovom. Pozdrav. --Pockey 21:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sve je politika na Balkanu; a što se tiče "zdravog razuma i objektivne situacije", ne slažem se s tobom o procjeni "objektivne situacije" (da ne ulazim u zdrav razum :-) ). Što se tiče imena jezika, znam, samo je ostalo navika iz engleskog; valjda sam ovdje to 10000 puta napisao pa prsti sami lete. Duja 21:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serb je gramaticki ispravno. Ali samo dok se ne odnosi na Srbiju. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mene mozes smatrati slobodno Srbinom ciji je maternji jezik Hrvatski... No ne bi mi se svidjelo :))) (prvi dio). --HolyRomanEmperor 17:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian language

Sorry, but I have not been following this article in a long time, could you please show me the discussion where "we" agreed about the number of Macedonian speakers? -Macedonia 21:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here: Talk:Macedonian_language/Number_of_speakers, Talk:Macedonian_language#Featured article :-) ?. Duja 21:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello! I invite you to join the WikiProject Serbia. All the best, --serbiana - talk 02:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well...

Thanks for your support, means a lot to me --Dijxtra 12:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like your RfA succeded :-D I'm really happy to see people think I'm a good contributor, that gives me strength to carry on in this world of angry POV wariors, since now I have community consensus saying that I'm not mad and that I'm not traitor and that I'm not reckless vandal spreading propaganda. It's really nice to know people value your work and that there are people like you who won't get discouraged when I do something like turning down the first RfA nomination ;-)

I really look forward to countless edits that are ahead of me and really hope that you and I and some other really nice guys here on Wikipedia can prevail in NPOV pushing and that we can make an encyclopaedia to which all peoples of Balkans will turn for neutral and accurate information.

Oh, yeah, you got the sunflower pic too, a bit larger than the guys who voted, feel free to move it to your userpage as I'd like everybody to know that without your support I'd never become what I am now. --Dijxtra 12:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crnogorci

Osnovni problem je bio sto ne znam kako da stavim u isti clanak clanak da ima 599,999 crnogoraca i do 350,000 Crnogoraca u svijetu.

Onda dalje tu je sukob; Petar Petrovic Njegos (kao i mnogi drugi) je crnogorac i Srbin ali ne Crnogorac... Ima tu jos problema koji me obeshrabruju od edita.

Pokusacu, ali ne obecavam da necu vrsiti vandalizam vise ne go doprinos, pa ti motri na Montenegrins ;) --HolyRomanEmperor 18:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Možda se ne razumijemo... ako izuzmemo crnogorske Bošnjake i Albance, ja na to gledam da postoji 600,000 Crnogoraca. Neki se izjašnjavaju kao Srbi, neki kao Crnogorci – ali što te to muči? Pojam "Crnogorac" nikad nije bio nikom uvredljiv ni u kojem smislu (kao što bi se npr. Bošnjaci uvrijedili da ih zovu Muslimanima). Crnogorci su oduvijek bili nacija (u smislu da su imali državu i osjećaj zajedništva), a tek odskora su i etnos; ali ne vidim što je to tako teško uobličiti u NPOV članak. Duja 18:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pa eto nesporazuma (oprosti, moja je krivica sto sam se toliko neuko pokazao). Mislio sam da treba negdje reci da Crnogorac znaci dvije stvari: gradjanin Crne Gore i pripadnik jedne nacije. Zato sam mislio da imamo kao na Serbian clanku. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pojmovi "nacija" i "etnicitet/etnos" ne znače isto (ali postoji mnogo preklapanja). Na Zapadu su nation-states stvorene vrlo davno, i preklapanje je vrlo veliko, tako da zapadnjaci obično koriste te pojmove interchangeably. Kod nas je situacija još mutna. Dok je jasno šta je etnicitet, naše nacije (definisane kao kolektivitet svih građana jedne države koji osjećaju zajedništvo i srodnost sa državom, bez obzira na rasu, religiju itd.) su vrlo kljakave. Npr. Srbi i Hrvati u Bosni se ne osjećaju dijelom Bosanske nacije, Albanci u Makedoniji i Srbiji itd.

E sad, sa Crnom Gorom je specifikum što su oni imali prvo naciju/državu pa tek onda etnicitet, jer su se osjećali etničkim Srbima. Sa svim ostalim je manje-više obratno: svi su bili pod tuđom vlašću vijekovima pa tek odskora stvaraju države, a sa nacionalnom sviješću ide kljakavo (pogotovu u odnosu manjina prema naciji, ali da ne ulazim u razloge).

Da privedem tiradu kraju, 600000 Crnogoraca u CG (i šire) svi osjećaju CG kao svoju državu i smatraju sebe Crnogorcima (u nacionalnom smislu). Da li su etnički Srbi ili Crnogorci, ili i jedno i drugo, ili jedno pa drugo, se razlikuje od jednog do drugog. Moja poenta je, ne možemo ih vještački razdvajati po ovoj drugoj osnovi; taj osjećaj se promijenio prije 40 godina u jednu stranu, prije 5 godina u drugu, ko zna šta će sutra biti... Hoćemo li "šetati" brojke između dva članka? Duja 19:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naravno, naravno. Samo ja sam mislio da je ipak enciklopedijski pomenuti da se Crnogorac moze odnositi na sve gradjane Crn Gore (npr. Albance). No, dobro. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pomozi mi srijedit mess-up na Montenegrins, molim te. Dodajem i ostatak istorije; al' treba vremena... --HolyRomanEmperor 20:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Au j***m ti Holy, udavi članak sa istorijom. Znam da ti je to polje interesa, ali Montenegrins nije mjesto za toliko razglabanje. Baci sve to u History of Montenegro, a ovdje ostavi samo nekoliko crtica bitnih za razumijevanje geneze nacije i etniciteta. Dodao sam sekcije "Culture", "Tradition" itd, zasad prazne, poslije cemo ih popuniti. Aj' uradi to pa da malo uobličim članak ako stignem. Duja 21:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pa, kada stignem da napisem i ostale periode, nece biti prazne. :))) Inace, prihvatam odgovornost za History-push. Preuzecu i Language, no ne mogu ti garantirati da mnogo mogu staviti u Tradition i Culture, jer bi sve sto bih stavio tu bilo iskljucivo Srpstvo, a ne zelim se tako okarakterisati. Ako je taj stari period predugacak, mozemo ga skratiti. Ove strane gospodare mozemo staviti kroz X bili su vladani od strane y... Imam jos potencijalnih promjena, ali nemam mnogo slobodnog vremena. Poz! javi mi se! --HolyRomanEmperor 15:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Croatia

Thanks for the response at WP:CRO. I'm not sure how many people I'll be able to convince to rewrite Croats: the number of Croatian editors just isn't large enough to produce many quality articles.

Anyways, as you are one of the few truly NPOV editors in our field, I'd like to ask your help in something. I'm trying to create an official policy (Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/Policy) for resolving conflicts, avoiding bias, etc. We are mired in several long-running POV disputes with Serbian users. I am hoping this will help us resolve disputes more easily than the hot-headed revert war approach. If you are interested in adding to my little policy, give it a go. It's in its infancy right now.

I'm trying to keep it as civil and unspecific as possible. I'm really hoping that it will help limit the amount of ridiculous comments like, "Croatians did <insert event> to <insert people>" and "Stop pushing Ustaša POV", by showing Croatian editors (try to) follow a more specific set of guidelines. Besides, comments such as these are simply disrespectful and counterproductive. I may not be a perfect user, but at least I'm trying to understand the other side.

Also, I was thinking of collaborating (possibly with WP:YU) on a list of discreditted sources. Some POV disputes are caused by propaganda websites from all sides, and there should be a consensus on which ones are unacceptable.

If you're interested in any of the above, give me a shout sometime. If not, forgive my long-windedness. Regards. --Thewanderer 01:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odojak case

Duja, you didn't have to remove the lines regarding "odojak" in Croatian and in Serbian. That word really made confusions in Cro-Ser communications: "...Stigli su odojci iz Srbije, do večeras ćemo ih sve zaklat"... This was a typical village discussion, after peasants 've bought the pigs. You should've seen the faces of the Serbs who were there. Do you get me now? Kubura 09:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got you (and the anecdote is nice), but my point is that odojak only resembles odojče. It's possible that it creates confusion though. I'm not sure if it really belongs to the article. My point was, odojak simply doesn't exist in Serbian. Odojče (eng. suckling) also exists in Croatian as far as I can google? Duja 15:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:SOCK page

You might be interested in taking part in this discussion. --Dijxtra 12:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crnogorci

Dakle, postoji mali problem. Ajde da Montenegrins clanak bude clanak o Crnogorcima i Srbima iz Crne Gore. Ali postoji jedan problem sa strane. Muslimani. pocetkom 20 vijeka ustanovljeno je da je nesto vise od 0,5% stanovnistva srpsko i muslimansko (prema popisu). Danasnji Muslimani po nacionalnosti uglavnom preferiraju Srpski jezik za maternji, neg' Bosanski (zato se i ne deklarisu kao Bosnjaci). Da li sad da i njih uvrstimo u clanak? Pozdrav! --HolyRomanEmperor 18:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pa, treba ih spomenuti u svakom slučaju... previdio sam ih. Sad sam uradio Montenegrins#Religion sekciju pa bi se dalo tamo potrošiti par riječi.

Nego, moram da te kritikujem... Ja ne mogu da uhvatim ni za glavu ni za rep ni tvoj nedavni doprinos (sklonio sam ga u History of Montenegro), a bogme ni članke Duklja i Principality of Zeta. Znam da je stvar komplikovana, sa mnogo vladara, koji su jedni drugima bili vazali, koji su bili trećima vazali, oženjeni sa kćerkama četvrtih a karali žene petima, mijenjali teritorije češće nego donji veš... ali ajd' daj bar da priča teče hronološki. Vidi da li sam korektno izvukao sažetak u Montenegrins#Medieval ages? Duja 18:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nisam napisao ni jedan dio Principality of Zeta clanka. To je User:CrnaGora. A ne vidim bas sto fali Duklji? Preciziraj. Zar nije hronoloski? --HolyRomanEmperor 12:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Izvini; što se tiče Duklje, povlačim se i tvrdim suprotno – članak je OK. Pokušavao sam da iz ta tri članka izvučem suštinu, ali me ovaj tvoj doprinos na Montenegrins skroz pogubio... Duja 15:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Sorry about that, zapped the wrong person. The site is so slow it took almost five minutes to do the unblock. -- Curps 20:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegrins & other

E, pa; nije se Crnogorsko nacionalno budjenje desilo preko noci, a bogami nece ni clanak o njima/nama. :) You can see the history of the Duklja article, and I've made quitte a number of messy thingies like that, but I've repaired them all in due time. I think you shouldn't take much attention to the transitionary versions of my-edited articles. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA for HolyRomanEmperor

Hvala. Uopce nisam ni cak mislio na to.

Da li mislis da bi bilo pametno da odbijem nominaciju za admina? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iskreno, da. Mislim da (opet) ne bi prošao, mada s manjom razlikom ovaj put; mislim da s "tehničke" strane ima dosta još da naučiš o WP: stranama (mada si se dosta popravio od prošli put), pa ce te tu sasjeći "birokrate", a sa druge strane ce te sasjeći nacionalisti. Ja te stvarno volim kao dobrog lika, i divim se kako možeš sa svakim (meni je pun * nekih ljudi), ali ti se često desi da prvo požuriš, pa se pokačiš, pa se tek onda dogovaraš. Moja taktika je, kad znam da će moj doprinos biti kontroverzan, da prvo "omirišem situaciju" na Talk page-u. Ne kažem da je to dobitna taktika – your mileage may vary... Duja 20:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pa, proslu nominaciju sam odbio zbog malo edita. A ovi na irc chat-u mi savetuju da ne obustavljam ovu, barem zbog razloga zato sto HolyRomanEmperor4 izgleda automatski lose. Pozdrav! --HolyRomanEmperor 21:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Izvini što nisam glasao, nisam bio tu za vikend, a i sad imam posla preko glave. Nije fer da se pravim pametan post factum, ali tačno sam znao da će tako ispasti... Duja 18:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duja, HRE has been nominated for adminship. I have seen him working around on many Balkan/Former Yugoslavia articles and I am very happy with his calmness when editing and discussing controversial topics, even on the face of personal attacks from many users. I think Wikipedia would benefit from a level-headed Admin who will dedicate himself to that part of the Wiki project. Thanks, --Asterion 12:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegrins

ovo: ti Slaveni koji su naselili Duklju su dosli sa Bijelim Srbima, ali nisu stvorili tu knezevinu s njima bas.

Census, Censi. Otkuda ti Censa? --HolyRomanEmperor 17:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ne znam otkuda mi :-), ali nije ni censi nego censuses. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/census. Duja 14:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recognize

Quite a rush you had their, but it's all good to see how you as usually more enjoy talking than learning. I just loved you explaination of why there was a "war" in bosnia; "because serbs wanted to be bosnians", Duja I've never heard a theory that crazy since..ever. Last I checked serbian politic was to exterminate Bosnia and bosnians and to make it greater serbia.

It's been a long time ago since I wrote something in that sense, but, wasn't it obvious that I was telling that the Serbs waged war in Bosnia just because they didn't want to be Bosnians? I can't see how would one plausibly read it the other way round.Duja 18:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for your filing I couldn't be more scared, what was it called now again, wp:agd, wp:hftrd or wp:wgrgdb?. Yours sincerly Damir Mišić

I didn't mean WP:RfC as a threat, and that page is not intended for prosecution; this is a free encyclopedia after all. However, since you contest that only Live and I have something against your truthful and well-cited edits, while the rest of community supports your PoV, we might as well check whether it's the case. I think I already said this somewhere, but let me repeat: if I were you, and if no single edit of mine has survived unreverted, I'd ask myself a few questions... But it doesn't seem to bother you. Duja 18:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duja...

Why do you never answer on other people's talk pages? (you do it here, instead) --HolyRomanEmperor 16:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I occasionally do, but I more like it this way -- see the heading of my talk page :-). It's far easier to follow the discussion. (And I'm a damn old Usenet/Forums wolf). If you prefer the "on each other's" approach, just say so. Duja 17:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do you even have a clue?. This is not catherine of Russia but Catherine of B-o-s-n-i-a! Look carefully next time you vandalise! Damir Mišić

How can you consider that an insult - it wasn't at least ment as one. Chetniks aren't neccessary something negative, every people should be proud of their history and stand for what they are.

Please. You know very well that the term is insulting. Did Bosniaks and Serbs from trenches in the war called each other "Četnici" and "Turci" because they liked each other? I find it very insulting. Duja 22:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what I on the other hand classify as an insult is your denial of pure facts, Katarina Kosača-Kotromanić was Bosnjanin (an archaic term of Bosniaks). Have you ever also considered the lilies on her crown? "Lilium Bosniacum". Please Duja I beg you come to your senses and let's not deny things or facts that both you and I know are true, shouldn't we try to get along instead of having arguments every other second. Neither you or I need milosevic's and mladic's politics. Damir Mišić 22:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our argument from the start is the disagreement about scope and meaning of terms "Bosanac/Bosnian", "Bošnjak/Bosniak" and/or "Bošnjanin". I (and many other people) find your equalization of these terms unacceptable, and it goes against the common usage in both English and our language(s). For the start, I disagree that "Bošnjanin" is an archaic term for "Bosniak" (modern-acknowledged ethnic group); it is an archaic term for "Bosnian" (resident of Bosnia). I certainy don't deny she was a Bosnian but I do oppose your attempts of monopolization of Bosnian history to Bosniaks. I'm not stating she was a Serb or Croat either – I support the arguments presented in nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina article. I do oppose your attempt to appropriate someone who belongs to shared Bosnian history to one ethnic group (as I would with Meša Selimović, Ivo Andrić or even Zdravko Čolić if you like). Duja 22:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, you two are starting to argue really heavily. Now, Damir has invited me to ask you Duja to stop warning him, but I do not even know what's the arguement about.

I would like to hear (both versions) here why are you arguing so much? --HolyRomanEmperor 12:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Bosniaks#Catherine the Great???. The bottom line is, he's trying to retrofit medieval Bosnian people into modern Bosniak ethnic group. Duja 15:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking. Will comment there. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting on Principle of restricted choice (bridge)

In don't know what the heck I was thinking on that one. Thanks for putting it back. Perhaps I was looking at an older version. Yours is clearly better than mine. --Doradus 16:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your time to shine has come

[2] --VKokielov 03:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegrins

You're being far too sensitve over the edits. The reason some sentences were entirely changed from scratch is because they were logically stemming from the exact sentence (or two) that contained false info. If they were left as is, they wouldn't make sense anymore due to original edit. 65.94.141.191 19:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey, thanks for changing the redirect back to Bosanska Dubica. There is no need for having two seperate ones since I tried to make it neutral in the text, mentioning that some people call it Bosanska Dubica, while others call it Kozarska Dubica (More info on the discussion page of Bosanska Dubica). In the actual article (that deals about the present time) I only simply use Dubica (to be fair). Kozarska Dubica was a complete copy of the article Bosanska Dubica, there is no need to make it two articles.

Thanks, Kseferovic 22:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome -- you could have done it yourself though :-). Duja 22:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podgorica

Zašto si sklonio ćirilično ime iz šablona za Podgoricu? Šta znači ovo da to "screws the links"? Koje linkove? Kod mene izgleda sasvim dobro. Koji ti browser koristiš i na kojoj ti je rezoluciji računar? Možda je to problem. Možeš li onda da promeniš šablon i vratiš ćirilicu? PANONIAN (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, video sam na šta misliš, nisam ni primetio taj bag. Ja ne znam kako da promenim template da bih dodao ćirilično ime. Ako ti znaš kako, molim te to uradi (kad stigneš naravno). Pozdrav. PANONIAN (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ja ću srediti ostale. PANONIAN (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry

A consensus of editors appears to be behind User:Dijxtra's proposal to make a clean distinction between types of alternate accounts. We are moving ahead with it now and could use your help. As per the talk page discussion, I am placing the following table on the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry page. Please help edit it and the rest of the page to match.

Types of alternate accounts
Official term	Wikipedia policy	Criteria
Declared alternate account	Legal, but frowned upon	An editor in good standing publicly declares the name and purpose of an alternate account.
Undeclared alternate account	Legal, but frowned upon	An editor in good standing uses an alternate account without declaring it or using it for sockpuppetry.
Evasion alternate account	Illegal (indefinite block after CheckUser confirmation)	A banned or blocked editor uses an alternate account to circumvent the ruling.
Sockpuppet	Illegal (vote does not count, opinion is disregarded, a declaration of the sockpuppet may be placed on the user's page by an administrator)	An editor uses more than one account in the same vote or discussion without declaring it.

Thanks, Dragon's Blood 04:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hipi Zhdripi

Hej, vidi ovog usera: User:Hevnonen. Jel se tebi cini da je to sock od Hipi Zhdripija? Mislim da si ti vec imao problema s njim, pa racunam da ces lakse prepoznati njegov "pravopis". Hipi Zhdripi je blockan zauvijek i ako je to nejgov sock, onda ga mozemo isto blockat, pa reko, ako se i tebi cini da je to on, da povedem proceduru... --Dijxtra 23:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure these users are the same person. The problem is that semi-protection will not stop him anyway, as he just needs to create a new user and wait a few days before using it... --Asterion ^{talk to me} 23:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crnogorci,

Dakle, sada moramo odluciti - na tabeli, da li da se sracunaju i Srbi i Crnogorci u broju svih Crnogoraca - i dali jos da dodam i Muslimane? Hajde mi reci. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

skroliraj i pogledaj moje pitanje o Montenegrins. Mislim da (sada pogotovo kada je referendum za nezavinsost) treba d autvrdimo tu cifru - ajd' molim te pogledaj. P. S. Kako je bilo tamo? --HolyRomanEmperor 12:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy, ne moraš shvatiti bukvalno ono "at the end of the talk page". Otkud ja znam na sta misliš ako ne staviš u odgovarajuću sekciju. Evo refaktorizovaću pa ti odgovoriti...Duja 13:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pa, nisam za; mоžda sam kriv za duple standarde, ali, nekako mi to... ne znam, možda nemam pravi razlog, ali... đedovi crnogorskih Srba i crnogorskih Crnogoraca su ratovali protiv predaka tih Muslimana (a bo'me je bilo tu i masakra tokom WW2). Ako bi mogao kolektivno da pitaš njih, ne vjerujem da bi se i oni složili. Duja 15:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Slavic languages

Hi!

Call me stupid, but I think you made an error when you formatted the list of South Slavic languages and put Slovenian on the same level as Chokavian and Kajkavian dialects of you-know-what. Now, I'm not a linguistics expert so since you made the new version of the list, I was only wondering whether that was some error or was it deliberate and if so, I'm just wondering what was your reasoning behind it. Also, you put Chakavian and Kajkavian on a hugher level than Štokavian.

PS: Sorry for writing you-know-what, I just don't want to insult anyone with this, since some users tend to get very touchy about the subject. I hope you understand. :) edolen1 21:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

HolyRomanEmperor has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Blocked IP

Hey, Duja, I unblocked the IP and contacted User:Curps. Do you work at University of Novi Sad? If you do, could you ask some sysadmin there to see who is vandalising Wikipedia and to disciplline the guy? --Dijxtra 09:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikola. I'd rather not contact our sysadmins unless forced to; the whole point of their existence is to make life difficult for honest users while leaving security holes for bad guys (the proxy has been blacklisted several times for spamming, malware and whatnot, and the only spam filters and antivirus I rely on are on my own computer); there are some 10-20,000 users though. I hope the vandalism will not recur, otherwise... Duja 09:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the unblock notice as it appears to be resolved. Please feel free to readd it if you still have problems. Stifle (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stifle; I completely forgot I should remove it when unblocked. Duja 07:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I knew if I stumbled around long enough some kind soul would notice me. Thanks for your useful comments, I will certainly learn from them. I put a suggestion on the Talk:Contract bridge page just before seeing your message to me, perhaps you might like to comment on that? I will try to help where I can. ...... sorry about the multiple edits I will get the hang of it soon (forgot the tildes!). Abtract 11:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Petrović

Sorry, it just seemed strange to me that a player's name and nickname were included in the title. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) states that FirstName LastName is the standard format - those articles that for players who are known by a nickname (e.g. Pelé or Ronaldinho) use the nickname exclusively (they are not called Edson Arantes do Nascimento Pelé or Ronaldo de Assis Moreira Ronaldinho). For the sake of consistency with other Serbian footballers (who are all referred to in FirstName LastName format), it made sense to me to just use Vladimir Petrović, so I obeyed "be bold" and went ahead.

So, either call the article Pižon or Vladimir Petrović - but you can't have both: to do so would imply his full and proper name was "Vladimir Petrović Pižon" which would be highly misleading. Qwghlm 10:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a further thought, it might just be possible to use Vladimir Petrović "Pižon", as that way it makes clear "Pižon" is just a nickname and not part of his full name. English convention for nicknames is to insert them between the first and last names (e.g. Vladimir "Pižon" Petrović) but from what it seems the Serbian convention is to put it at the end of the name... there is no WP guideline on the matter as far as I can see so I'll leave it to your discretion. Qwghlm 10:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By not using quotes it implies "Pižon" is part of his name, and I think many of the articles in that Google search are under the illusion that it is; several have introduced a hyphen which makes it look like his surname is double-barrelled ("Petrović-Pižon"), which is very definitely wrong. To avoid anyone going down that line, I think we should make the distinction very clear and use quotes. The old version of Yugoslavia [3] (before I edited it) used double quotes when referring to him, as did Red Star Belgrade [4].

Also, I don't think it's a problem whether to use double or single quotes, the MoS recommends double before single within article text, and if you look at how nicknames-within-titles are generally dealt with on Wikipedia (e.g. Christopher "Kid" Reid, Steve "Static" Garrett), double seems to be the convention. Qwghlm 11:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for that, and for the double redirect fixes. I'll sort out remaining redirections in due course. Qwghlm 12:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniaks

That article is getting ridiculous (Albanian origins?) - it's just plain in need of a complete rennovation. My school year ends on the 2nd of June, after which I'll probably make it a priority. Hopefully you'll still be around so we can turn the article around. Live Forever 17:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bid/Call etc

I don't want to waste too much of our time on this but I can't quite understand why you keep changing what to me seem (obviously) correct definitions, Imagine this bidding (showing all 4 players}: 1C - double - pass - ?. Can this player double? No of course not because his partner has already doubled the 1C bid but the last bid was by an opponent. Surely the only way to cope with this is to specify that a double can only be made when the last call other than a pass was a bid by an opponent? To say simply "the last bid was by an opponent" is not sufficient because it doesn't cover the situation where partner has doubled. Similar reasoning applies to redouble.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Abtract (talk • contribs)

Ah I see now. I'm fixing it further right now, but I have problem committing the changes. However, "call other than pass" may include a redouble... or not... ugh...

You seem to be right, though, but the old version IMO suffers from lack of clarity—I parsed it wrongly myself. Can we find a simpler yet unambiguous wording? I admit my version is potentially ambiguous, but...

OK, we are as one now ... apologies for not signing before. Abtract 10:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnians in bosniak article

Duja I've known you for some time and by expirience you mostly, at least, motivate your changes to articles. So why haven't you said a single word about the changes you are making to bosniaks article? Bosniaks are Bosnians, as are Bosnian serbs and croats or anyone else who lives in or considers bosnia to be their homeland. And bosniaks are referred to as bosnians pretty frequently, I don't know if you've been in western countries but bosniaks are often called bosnians there, the language spoken "there" is mostly english. This is what the intro wants to make clear, it is no lie but facts. Thank you Damir Mišić 14:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm tired of fighting with your and Jadran's PoV and WP:POINT. I am aware of that usage of "Bosnian", but you'll agree that it's at best colloquial and imprecise (to avoid Jadran's term of "incorrect"). Actually, I don't mind that it's mentioned in the article, but not in the lead sentence—if we (finally) agree about the scope of terms "Bosniak" and "Bosnian" and endorse that usage throughout.Duja 15:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okej so where would you like to place the term bosnians in article then?. This new user Jadran has taken position number one in pov publishing, I don't know if you agree, I think that you consider me to be on that place instead. Damir Mišić 13:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just did it, if you agree. Duja 14:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

Apologies if I did not follow the correct procedure but I was indeed being bold and, I thought safely so, as it seemed obvious, as soon as I saw these separate but linked articles, that the merge was needed. No content or format will be lost and surely there is much to be gained by having all these small subsets of ruffing in the same article. A reader will be able to find all that he needs on the mechanics and tactical use of the ruff in the one place. I am on the same side as you; I wish to see excellent articles on bridge related matters. Please see my attempts in that light. Abtract 18:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contract bridge

I like your "concept of vulnerablity" edit; it adds to the understanding of a very difficult topic - bridge scoring. The next para (the one you left more or less unchanged) must be difficult for a person new to bridge to understand. There must be a way of retaining the links with rubber as the original method from which all others have sprung, but at the same time showing the importance of duplicate/chicago scoring as the modern method. No doubt you will think of a way. Abtract 18:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag etc

I might overuse the POV tag, but frankly, I don't have the energy for half the discussions here. It's like banging your head against a brick wall. There was a dispute a while ago as to whether Serbo-Croat should be in Category: Languages of Croatia for example. Every dispute seems to come down to who is bloody minded enough to persist longest. I feel that using the POV tag at least alerts the reader to the fact that what they're reading may not be the gospel truth. Many less technologically inclined people/members of the public trust Wikipedia to an unerasonable degree, and when people are not in agreement, the reader should be aware of that, even if the problem can't be solved in the forseeable future. Removing the POV tag simply because someone doesn't have the energy to list all the problems with an article of several hundred lines (i.e. [5]) isn't the way forward in my humble opinion. --estavisti 17:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention, if you could reply on my talk page it would be much appreciated as I'll probably never see your response here. --estavisti 17:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karadjordjevic

I see that you've put it up at WP:RM. I put the same request there on the 29th, though as nothing seems to be getting done you might as well leave yours up as well. --estavisti 11:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zastava 2

Evo sada je aktuelno pitanje zastave i cini mi se da boje na Wikipedii odgovaraju samo onima sa sajta Parlamenta a da su u realnosti i na sajtu Vlade drugacije.

Primeri:

Boje su definitivno poput onih na zastavi SCG.

Pozdrav Avala 17:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]